Well-Known Member

Vega is EOL (56,64 and vii) unless you can find a good deal 2nd hand. The 2060,2070 is pointless now that the $uper cards are out . Anything more then a 2060$uper is overpriced. Rather look at the 5700 AMD cards , better price/performance.

Executive Member

Vega is EOL (56,64 and vii) unless you can find a good deal 2nd hand. The 2060,2070 is pointless now that the $uper cards are out . Anything more then a 2060$uper is overpriced. Rather look at the 5700 AMD cards , better price/performance.

At 2060 "Super" it's not worth the FPS hit for a vast majority of cases. There are other graphic settings I'd rather turn up.
The question is always one of price/performance, and we'll see what everything looks like once prices settle a bit to recommend one over the other, plus use case is important.

Honorary Master

Still happy with my Vega 64, and I paid R 4000. I am, however, considering upgrading to a 5700 XT. Though it isn't needed I want to downgrade my PSU and the Vega 64 is too power hungry in order to do so. I will only consider RTX when NVidia makes their next move, but I wouldn't mind a 2080 SUPER.

It will be sooner than later. Most E3 AAA titles which were announced will have RTX or is planning to have RTX. Not like the console makers, AMD and Intel are ignoring it. AMD has patented a hybrid model, and they do talk about it a lot. The market is still to see how path tracing and AMD's hybrid tracing will compare to NVidia's Ray Tracing.

Ray Tracing is also improving and with NVidia's latest drivers it has improved a lot when using DX12. The impact is being minimised and Ray Tracing is also applied uniquely.

NVidia put it on the radar, Adored elaborated on it, and Team Red people had to hate it. Just wait until AMD’s Hybrid Tracing is coming about, it will be hailed next level…

Honorary Master

Ray tracing will be a niche requirement for the next few years at least. No reason to waste a couple grand on it now when by the time it's mainstream it will be supported by all vendors and available on mainstream cards.

Honorary Master

Ray tracing will be a niche requirement for the next few years at least. No reason to waste a couple grand on it now when by the time it's mainstream it will be supported by all vendors and available on mainstream cards.

Good, then in 2-3 years there will be some mainstream cards that can actually handle it without severely slowing down. Right now there isn't much sense in enabling it over other features that aren't so computing intensive.

By which time the first gen RTX cards will be end of life, and AMD will likely have their first gen ray tracing support in place. Can you honestly say it's worth spending money on right now? Also, is the visual improvement (if any) worth the massive hit in frame rates? Personally, my answer is hell no. It's up to you of course, but I'm not interested. Not yet.

Well-Known Member

It will be sooner than later. Most E3 AAA titles which were announced will have RTX or is planning to have RTX. Not like the console makers, AMD and Intel are ignoring it. AMD has patented a hybrid model, and they do talk about it a lot. The market is still to see how path tracing and AMD's hybrid tracing will compare to NVidia's Ray Tracing.

Ray Tracing is also improving and with NVidia's latest drivers it has improved a lot when using DX12. The impact is being minimised and Ray Tracing is also applied uniquely.

NVidia put it on the radar, Adored elaborated on it, and Team Red people had to hate it. Just wait until AMD’s Hybrid Tracing is coming about, it will be hailed next level…

Ray tracing will be worth spending money on eventually. It really isn't right now. If you buy Nvdia, you're forced to pay extra for the RT cores and tensor cores and whatnot because you have no choice, even if you're not interested in ray tracing and just want a better gaming card.

I'll consider spending money on an RT-capable card when the technology has matured and support has become more widespread. Until then, no thanks. Not worth the extra money.